I'm not a member of the NRA, or a gun owner, hell I haven't even touched a gun since I got out of the service over 33 years ago, but REALLY?

The principal of Sandy Hook elementary reportedly raced towards the gunman, (and her death). I know it's a controversial stance, but its not out ridiculous to think that had she been 'carrying', that maybe some of those young lives may have been saved.

BtW, if guns were illegal, the crazies would just get them from Eric Holder...

Last edited by ExPatriatePen on Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

What scares me about armed volunteers in school or arming teachers is the possibility of more innocent people getting injured or killed. Professionally trained police officers and soldiers aren't immune from accidentally shooting innocent people in the midst of chaos. Wouldn't those odds be even higher for a teacher or volunteer? And what if a non armed person got into a struggle with a carrying teacher/volunteer and obtains their weapon? Now someone, who possibly was only itching for a fist fight, armed and ready to shoot people?

Maybe those risks are worth taking - I don't know. I just think all possibilities need to be examined, especially when school shootings are (despite what happened yesterday) rare.

columbia wrote:If a school is so potentially dangerous, I would think that a police officer would be the preferred solution for security.

I agree. I don't know that it's really the way to go, but if you're going to add guns to school, I'd rather it be someone in a professional capacity.

The thing that seems to happen in all these cases is the shooter ends up killing himself in the end. So is having the threat of being shot really going to be a deterrent for someone who wants that to be the end result anyway?

columbia wrote:If a school is so potentially dangerous, I would think that a police officer would be the preferred solution for security.

I agree. I don't know that it's really the way to go, but if you're going to add guns to school, I'd rather it be someone in a professional capacity.

The thing that seems to happen in all these cases is the shooter ends up killing himself in the end. So is having the threat of being shot really going to be a deterrent for someone who wants that to be the end result anyway?

I think the argument many make (and I'm not sure where I stand on the topic) is that the shooter can be taken out earlier and thus lives could potentially be saved in the process.

columbia wrote:If a school is so potentially dangerous, I would think that a police officer would be the preferred solution for security.

I agree. I don't know that it's really the way to go, but if you're going to add guns to school, I'd rather it be someone in a professional capacity.

The thing that seems to happen in all these cases is the shooter ends up killing himself in the end. So is having the threat of being shot really going to be a deterrent for someone who wants that to be the end result anyway?

I think the argument many make (and I'm not sure where I stand on the topic) is that the shooter can be taken out earlier and thus lives could potentially be saved in the process.

It then becomes a risk/reward situation. Would schools become more dangerous having guns in them on a daily basis? For some schools, I would say definitely so.

columbia wrote:If a school is so potentially dangerous, I would think that a police officer would be the preferred solution for security.

I agree. I don't know that it's really the way to go, but if you're going to add guns to school, I'd rather it be someone in a professional capacity.

The thing that seems to happen in all these cases is the shooter ends up killing himself in the end. So is having the threat of being shot really going to be a deterrent for someone who wants that to be the end result anyway?

I think the argument many make (and I'm not sure where I stand on the topic) is that the shooter can be taken out earlier and thus lives could potentially be saved in the process.

It then becomes a risk/reward situation. Would schools become more dangerous having guns in them on a daily basis? For some schools, I would say definitely so.

Playing a bit of devils advocate here, but...

Assuming they're properly trained, no, that's like saying society is worse off because Police carry guns. That it's a more dangerous world.

Again, I'm playing devils advocate here, I do see some flaws to the concept.

One that bothers me is that these are impressionable children. It's one thing for them to see a gun on a uniformed officer, but I'd prefer that children don't grow up thinking that the average adult grabs a cell phone AND a gun before leaving the house each day.

ExPatriatePen wrote:It's one thing for them to see a gun on a uniformed officer, but I'd prefer that children don't grow up thinking that the average adult grabs a cell phone AND a gun before leaving the house each day.

ExPatriatePen wrote:It's one thing for them to see a gun on a uniformed officer, but I'd prefer that children don't grow up thinking that the average adult grabs a cell phone AND a gun before leaving the house each day.

I am posting here rather than in the School shooting in CT thread out of respect for the admin’s wishes to keep all things political in the political thread, though some of my comments are directed to what I’ve read in that thread.

Some in the other thread are saying that we shouldn’t politicize this tragedy by bringing up gun control. Bull. That’s an easy out for the pro-gun side; what they’re really saying is “let’s leave well enough alone.” Some in the other thread are stating that the shooting is not a gun control issue. Bull. If this event is not about the easy availability of guns in this country, what is?

In a tragically ironic coincidence, the massacre at Newtown was not the only attack on elementary school children to take place yesterday. In China, a deranged 23-year-old walked into an elementary school and brutally attacked school children. Twenty-two kids are now in the hospital, but none of them were killed. Here are 23 kids who hopefully will go on to have happy and productive lives. That won’t be happening with the victims in Newtown. Why has no one killed in China? Because the attacker came with a knife, not with semi-automatic weapons, which are virtually unheard of in China.

The NRA and their supporters always cite the Second Amendment right “to keep and bear arms.” But they conveniently forget the “well regulated Militia” part of that amendment. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in United States v. Miller (1939) that citizens do not have a right to bear arms if they are not part of a well-regulated militia. It’s time for us to start regulating. Or at least let 5-year-olds start packing heat.